An ethical person - like a politician, banker or lawyer - may know right from wrong, but unlike many of them, a moral person lives it. An Americanist first already knows that.
Bankers and their government agents will always act in their own best interests. Any residual benefit flowing down to the citizens by happenstance will just be litter.

Search Blog Posts

Thursday, January 2, 2014

Judges may be admonished, censured, retired, or removed from office by the commission on judicial conduct. The commission’s disciplinary actions are subject to review by the court of appeals.

Judges of the court of appeals and justices of the supreme court may be removed by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the legislature. Other judges may be removed by a two-thirds vote of the senate on the recommendation of the governor.

Judges may be impeached by a majority vote of the assembly and removed by a two-thirds vote of the court for the trial of impeachments. The court consists of the president of the senate, the senators, and the judges of the court of appeals. Source

Another shameful and corrupt anti-American ruling by a judicial elite who believe themselves to be above the law…

The dismantling of the Americans’ bill of rights continued this week – this time with the help of another anti-Constitutional judge. Many consider such rulings as ‘traitorous’, and rightfully so.

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution was enacted to protect American citizens from a power-crazed government, yet there are still many within the judiciary like District Judge Edward Korman (photo, left) from New York, who feel that rights are merely ‘relative’ and should be rolled back in the face of nonexistent and FBI-engineered threats like al Qaeda terrorists besieging the United States.

Judge Korman believes it’s perfectly OK for badge wearing thugs from the DHS, police or other ‘agencies’ – to search and analyze the data stored on your laptops, phones, cameras and anything else you may have on hand – for no reason, and with zero probable cause. This judge has clearly ruled in favor of a corporatized police state, with all its new bells and whistles.

Such a ruling by a US judge would be considered unconstitutional and an act of treason in past years, but as the Nazification of the US Federal Fascist States continues, this ruling will somehow be viewed by micromanagers and control-freaks in government jobs as “progress”.

Judges cannot, and should not be customizing our Bill of Rights in the United States of America. We believe these people, for whatever reason, are working against the founding principles of America and will do anything within their technocratic power to disassemble the US Constitution, and thus, should be relieved of their duties in decision-making positions on the grounds that they have willfully abused their power…

A US federal judge has reaffirmed an Obama administration policy granting officials the authority to search Americans’ laptops, citing a controversial premise that makes citizens within 100 miles of the border eligible for a police check.

District Judge Edward Korman made his ruling in New York on Tuesday, more than three years after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit. The ACLU claimed that – since Americans put so much of their lives on their computers, cell phones, and other devices – border officials should have reasonable suspicion before sifting through someone’s personal files.

Attorneys argued that searches conducted without reasonable suspicion are a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure.

Not so, according to Judge Korman. In his decision Tuesday he argued that the area 100 miles inland falls under a “border exemption.”

“Laptops have only come into widespread use in the twenty-first century. Prior to that time, lawyers, photographers, and scholars managed to travel overseas and consult with clients, take photographs, and conduct scholarly research,” wrote Korman.

“No one ever suggested the possibility of a border search had a chilling effect on his or her First Amendment rights. While it is true that laptops make overseas work more convenient, the precaution plaintiffs may choose to take to ‘mitigate’ the alleged harm associated with the remote possibility of a border search are simply among the many inconveniences associated with international travel.”...